Why would you want to blame pitbulls? I've only ever known them to be great dogs. If you want to start banning things, ban irresponsible owners. Too often I see hoodrats walking down the street with a bully breed, using them to look tough. Those poor dogs probably don't get the care and training that their breeds require, but there's no reason to punish the dogs for that.

Punish the homeowners. I bet if the owners had to take some responsibilies for their tennants, they wouldn't allow dogs. Most of these pitbull owners do not own their own home, they are renting or living with a boyfriend/girlfriend.

Punish the homeowners. I bet if the owners had to take some responsibilies for their tennants, they wouldn't allow dogs. Most of these pitbull owners do not own their own home, they are renting or living with a boyfriend/girlfriend. Posted by hawthorne3

This is the most specious argument I've heard in a while. So, only homeowners should be allowed to own dogs? What if I don't WANT to buy a home? I pay my own rent, I pay for my renter's insurance - and when I had dogs, I ensured that I got coverage through MY renter's insurance in case something happened that involved them.

I also made sure that I trained my dogs, exercised them, fed them, and gave them the care and attention they needed. I didn't need to own a HOME to do that.

I am so sick of this holier-than-thou attitude that Malden homeowners have when it comes to the renter base in the city. Not everyone who rents is on Section 8, unmarried, a drug dealer, with 10 kids that the state supports.

I choose not to buy - and if I ever change my mind, rest assured that I won't buy in Malden. I don't want neighbors who basically live in a ghetto but who act like their homes are sacred ground in Lexington or Concord. We are all, renters or homeowners, in this together. The more homeowners like you bash renters like me, the more I just want to leave the neighborhood and you to your own devices.

You missed the point. Homeowners are renting out to people who own notoriously dangerous dogs (like it or not, pit bulls are recognized as dangerous dogs by several difference sources). When those dogs bite someone (because they're owned by people less responsible than you) who should be held accountable for that?

Many homeowners who rent have clauses about pets (ex. cats only, small dogs only, dogs under 35lbs only, no dangerous dogs, etc.). No one in Malden seems to care enough about who rents their home, therefore, there should be repercussions when they allow dangerous breeds into their apartments.

The pitbulls walking around this town certainly aren't owned by responsible dog lovers who have renter's insurance and a trainer. More likely than not, the other end of the leash is being held by a thug that's on Section 8 with 10 kids selling coke on the corner.

These dogs were once used for war. It is in the blood line. The most Dangerous dog is the Dalmatian, Should we ban them? The blood line of the dog is all fighting. But they are very loyal and protective dogs. Yes many thugs use these dogs to make money, intimidation, and as a weapon. But also people that are not on section 8 use them as great guard dogs. I have been around many kinds and calm pit bulls. I admit they can turn very quick, but name one dog that wont?

WhatDidISay: I did not miss the point. I do understand that as a breed, the animals are on the list of dangerous dogs. I also know that in 2009, studies were released, and agreed upon with the Kennel Club, that showed that English Cocker Spaniels are the most aggressive breed of domesticated dog. http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-bites/dog-bite-studies/

The 20 year study conducted by the CDC also determined that bites by breed tend to rise as a breed's popularity rises - and the owners provide only minimum training/interaction/discipline and reinforcement to their pet. Pit Bulls and their mixes do make that list, as do many, many other dogs.

With that in mind, when any dangerous animal attacks another individual or animal, the OWNER should be held ultimately responsible. The fact of the animal's owner being a homeowner or not is absolutely irrelevant. There are two different homeowners on my street who maltreat or neglect their dogs, but the tenants across from us are outstanding pet owners and trainers.

The bottom line is: If I am attacked by a dangerous animal, I don't care whether or not the owner owns his or her own home. I will press charges against the owner of that animal if the attack was clearly unprovoked and/or the result of maintaining a breed of dog with the potential to be dangerous, without the proper care, handling, and controls a responsible owner should exercise.

My bigger issue with the contention initially stated (re: home ownership vs. tenancy) is that this is hardly the first time that "renters" have been blamed for all of the ills of Malden. The precious home owners in this community tend to lump any and all tenants into the "thug" pool, reinforcing a belief that anyone who doesn't strive to own their own home is lazy, doesn't work, and leaches off of the poor, hard working homeowner.

It's tiresome, it's incorrect, and it's an affront to the majority of renters who are good tenants, who are long-term tenants, who are law abiding citizens, and who generally care about the community that they call home - even when that community apparently couldn't care less about them because of some outmoded classist notion that home ownership = a better class of people.

Finally, I live in Maplewood and I'll tell you now, the dogs in my neighborhood are predominantly small, yappy dogs that are completely untrained, that bark all night and are left in their yards to do so in all weather by those wonderful homeowners. They are more aggressive towards other dogs and people than any Pit Bull I've ever encountered. While they may do little damage to me as a full grown adult, one did attempt to cross a street to go after my daughter when she was about 15 months old - and that would have seriously hurt a baby; possibly even killed her.

I'd love to see someone propose a ban on these nuisance dogs even though, again, it's the owners who are at fault for treating them as toys and not animals that need to be trained and have clear limits set. Yes, even dogs with a brain the size of a pea can and should be trained too - and can be highly aggressive if not.

WhatDidISay: I did not miss the point. I do understand that as a breed, the animals are on the list of dangerous dogs. I also know that in 2009, studies were released, and agreed upon with the Kennel Club, that showed that English Cocker Spaniels are the most aggressive breed of domesticated dog.

And yet thugs and drug dealers choose to walk around with Pitbulls instead of Cocker Spaniels. Go figure.

The point you keep missing is that when a person is bit by someone's dog and that someone is a renter with no assets to levy against, the victim walks away with nothing but medical bills. I'm not exactly sure what "charges" you think you'll press but this has nothing to do with renter bias.

The original point made about the dog owner being a home owner is in regard to the home owners' tenants. Here's the original quote you found so offensive: "Punish the homeowners. I bet if the owners had to take some responsibilies for their tennants, they wouldn't allow dogs." The statement is not a judgement on renters but instead a comment on the quality of tenants home owners are renting too.

If you're a good tenant who doesn't own a dangerous dog then the statement doesn't apply to you. And if you rent a unit in a multi-dwelling property, I'd think you'd want your landlord to responsibly choose the neighbors in your building as well.

I don't keep missing that point. If you are bit by a dangerous dog, you can press criminal charges of assault with a deadly weapon on the dog's owner. My health insurance will cover my medical expenses. I don't need to sue someone for that. I would, however, consider it assault and want the animal's owner punished accordingly, within the law. Fortunately, the law makes provisions for that. Funnily enough, it doesn't matter about the owner's living situation in those provisions.

Interstingly though, a landlord may not allow a dangerous dog on the premises but unless it is very specifically stated in the terms of the lease agreement, it's very hard to remove the dog without it having already been deemed as aggressive (in other word, unless it's already attacked someone) or the tenants if they have not violated the lease in another way.

Trust me, I've been down this road with a friend who was once a landlord (in Malden no less!).

So, because the law does provide you recourse under criminal statutes to punish the dog's owner for an attack but it gives landlords almost no recourse if the animal simply resides on the property without being in direct violation of a very specific clause in the lease - it's still somehow the landlord's uncaring, heartless fault?

And in fact, THIS is the statement that irked me at first: Most of these pitbull owners do not own their own home, they are renting or living with a boyfriend/girlfriend.

The implication here being, of course, that no responsible homeowner would own such an animal in spite of there being no substantiated evidence or source to back this claim up. It's a perception.

But you so kindly followed that up with this: No one in Malden seems to care enough about who rents their home, therefore, there should be repercussions when they allow dangerous breeds into their apartments.

No one in Malden cares who they rent to, huh? So, what it sounded like to me is that you're blaming the class of renters in Malden for the issues that we have. Don't come back and say it's the landlords' fault either. The bottom line is that you've indicated here that the class of renters is your issue because they're prone to thuggery.

And yet thugs and drug dealers choose to walk around with Pitbulls instead of Cocker Spaniels. Go figure.

Actually, around my part of the 'hood, the thugs and dealers have yorkies and other small, odd-breed yappy dogs. Believe me, it makes for some awesome entertainment because you look a right 'git when you're wandering around with your chains, your hat cocked sideways, and your pants around your bum, walking a dog that my cats could eat for lunch.

In Response to Re: Pitbulls:[QUOTE]I don't keep missing that point. If you are bit by a dangerous dog, you can press criminal charges of assault with a deadly weapon on the dog's owner .

Good luck with that, Hellgirl. Using your own explanation, it would be very hard to press criminal charges against the owner of a dog unless it had already been deemed aggressive (the dog that is). The only punishment would be the dog being euthanized which would hardly seem like proper recourse.

Interstingly though, a landlord may not allow a dangerous dog on the premises but unless it is very specifically stated in the terms of the lease agreement, it's very hard to remove the dog without it having already been deemed as aggressive (in other word, unless it's already attacked someone) or the tenants if they have not violated the lease in another way.

That is why home OWNERS need to be held accountable for the tenants they're renting to. Home owners need to put very specific wordage in their lease agreements to not allow dangerous dogs. I'm sure the insurance companies would appreciate the honesty, especially since most would not extend insurance to a home owner if they were housing (directly or indirectly) a dangerous animal.

So, because the law does provide you recourse under criminal statutes to punish the dog's owner for an attack but it gives landlords almost no recourse if the animal simply resides on the property without being in direct violation of a very specific clause in the lease - it's still somehow the landlord's uncaring, heartless fault?

The answer to your question is yes. The law provides recourse when someone breaks into my home yet I lock my doors at night. The responsible landlord will care for his investment, his community and his tenants by providing a safe living environment and that safe living environment will be guaranteed by the "very specific clause" you speak of.

And in fact, THIS is the statement that irked me at first: Most of these pitbull owners do not own their own home, they are renting or living with a boyfriend/girlfriend. The implication here being, of course, that no responsible homeowner would own such an animal in spite of there being no substantiated evidence or source to back this claim up.

There was no "implication". It was merely a statement; most pitbull owners in Malden are renters/thugs (not that most renters are thugs). Personally, I've never seen a happy family walking together in Malden, holding hands and skipping, smiling faces on the children, and a pitbull on their leash. I'm not that naive to think that pitbulls can't be a good family pet with training, care, and proper attention. But we're talking about young "men" in their early 20's with baggy pants, underwear showing, wife beater t-shirts, and a joint inconspiciously cupped in their hands. Hardly the picture of home ownership and responsibility. Yet a supposed responsible home owner in Malden took a look at this guy and determined he'd be a great tenant, glassy eyes and all.

It's a perception. But you so kindly followed that up with this: No one in Malden seems to care enough about who rents their home, therefore, there should be repercussions when they allow dangerous breeds into their apartments. No one in Malden cares who they rent to, huh? So, what it sounded like to me is that you're blaming the class of renters in Malden for the issues that we have. Don't come back and say it's the landlords' fault either. The bottom line is that you've indicated here that the class of renters is your issue because they're prone to thuggery.

Point missed: The issue (not mine, by the way, as I wasn't the OP) is the class of LANDLORDS in Malden. And by the default that also extends then to the class of RENTERS. Not all renters, as I'm a renter as well as you. The difference being is I can recognize that I'm not referenced when people start talking about pitbull owners and thugs so I don't get offended.